Mumbai Goa Court August 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shri Raul Po and Another Vs. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri S. Narvekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the respondent dated 17.05.2005 whereby the petitioners have been inter alia directed to demolish the disputed structure without any further notice. There are further directions issued by the respondent to forthwith disconnect the electricity and water supply to the said structure. 3. Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the petitioners have produced the material on record from the statutory Authority to disclose that the disputed structure was existing for more than 80 years. The learned Counsel further points out that the late father of the petitioners was even residing in the disputed structure for more than 75 years and that even he had sought for regularization of the sa...
Shri Raul Po and Another Vs. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri S. Narvekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the respondent dated 17.05.2005 whereby the petitioners have been inter alia directed to demolish the disputed structure without any further notice. There are further directions issued by the respondent to forthwith disconnect the electricity and water supply to the said structure. 3. Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the petitioners have produced the material on record from the statutory Authority to disclose that the disputed structure was existing for more than 80 years. The learned Counsel further points out that the late father of the petitioners was even residing in the disputed structure for more than 75 years and that even he had sought for regularization of the sa...
Shri Upendra B. Karpe Vs. Revision Authority (Central Government), Gov ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. S. Kamat Malyekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no. 1 and Mr. M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. Rule, by consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 31.1.2011 passed by respondent no. 1 as well as communication dated 5.2.2001 addressed by respondent no. 3 to the predecessor in title of the petitioner rejecting renewal application filed by predecessor in title of the petitioner. The petitioner further seeks writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to consider the application dated 20.11.2006 for renewal of mining lease. Respondent no.1 has rejected the renewal application preferred by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals Act and Rule 54 of the Rules framed thereunder. The same has been dismissed by respondent no.1 by the impugned order dated 31.1.2011 primarily on the gr...
M/S. Goa Shipyard Limited Vs. Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant/complainant takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 23rd July, 2008, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Vasco-da-Gama, Goa whereby the complaint against the accused has been dismissed and the accused acquitted. 2. The complainant filed the above referred complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging that the accused who was working as in-charge of complainant's Liaison Office at New Delhi had not accounted for Rs. 2,49,774=83. Process was issued against the accused and substance of accusation was explained to the accused on 23.4.2007. 3. In Criminal Case No.99/N/2002/B, the complainant examined three witnesses, namely PW. 1 Ram Asur, PW.2 Srinivas Samavedam and PW.3 Sunil Prasad Yadav. Besides, the oral evidence of the three witnesses, the complainant also tendered voluminous documents to prove the offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act. 4. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P....
Shri Andre Bibiano Furtado Vs. Shri Norberto Mascarenhas (Deceased), T ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
This is plaintiff's second appeal. 2. Plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 17/1997/B for demarcation of southern boundary line of the suit property, by appointing Head Surveyor of the Survey Department, to do the same. The plaintiff had also sought permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from constructing compound wall on the southern boundary of the suit property or encroaching upon the suit property. The original defendant died during pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record. 3. Plaintiff's case, in short, was as follows:- He is the owner in possession of the suit property known as “Borimollacodil Moddi” situated at Borimol in Quepem Taluka, being bounded on the east and north by Municipal road; on the west by the property of Carlos Mascarenhas, under survey no. 57/1 and on the south by the property bearing survey no. 56/1, which belongs to the defendants. The suit property bears survey no. 57/2. It was allotted to the plaint...
Shri Andre Bibiano Furtado Vs. Shri Norberto Mascarenhas (Deceased), T ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
This is plaintiff's second appeal. 2. Plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 17/1997/B for demarcation of southern boundary line of the suit property, by appointing Head Surveyor of the Survey Department, to do the same. The plaintiff had also sought permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from constructing compound wall on the southern boundary of the suit property or encroaching upon the suit property. The original defendant died during pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record. 3. Plaintiff's case, in short, was as follows:- He is the owner in possession of the suit property known as Borimollacodil Moddi situated at Borimol in Quepem Taluka, being bounded on the east and north by Municipal road; on the west by the property of Carlos Mascarenhas, under survey no. 57/1 and on the south by the property bearing survey no. 56/1, which belongs to the defendants. The suit property bears survey no. 57/2. It was allotted to the plaintiff by way Dee...
M/S. Goa Shipyard Limited Vs. Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant/complainant takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 23rd July, 2008, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Vasco-da-Gama, Goa whereby the complaint against the accused has been dismissed and the accused acquitted. 2. The complainant filed the above referred complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging that the accused who was working as in-charge of complainant's Liaison Office at New Delhi had not accounted for Rs. 2,49,774=83. Process was issued against the accused and substance of accusation was explained to the accused on 23.4.2007. 3. In Criminal Case No.99/N/2002/B, the complainant examined three witnesses, namely PW. 1 Ram Asur, PW.2 Srinivas Samavedam and PW.3 Sunil Prasad Yadav. Besides, the oral evidence of the three witnesses, the complainant also tendered voluminous documents to prove the offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act. 4. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P....
M/S Marine Cret E (India) Vs. M/S Gold Star Machinery and General Co.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-09-2012
Oral Judgment: This is plaintiffs' Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiffs had filed Special Civil Suit No. 65/1981/I for recovery of a sum of Rs. 23,466/- with further interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment of entire amount. This suit was filed on 28/04/1981. By Judgment and Decree dated 06/08/1999, the learned First Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao (trial Court) decreed the suit and directed the defendants to pay the principal sum of Rs. 21,831.64 to the plaintiffs with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 28/11/1980 till the date of actual payment. 3. The defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1999 against the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court. By judgment and decree dated 09/07/2003, the learned Additional District Judge (III), South Goa, Margao (first Appellate Court) allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 06/08/1999 of the trial Court. The Special Civil Suit No. 65/...
M/S Marine Cret E (India) Vs. M/S Gold Star Machinery and General Co.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-09-2012
Oral Judgment: This is plaintiffs' Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiffs had filed Special Civil Suit No. 65/1981/I for recovery of a sum of Rs. 23,466/- with further interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment of entire amount. This suit was filed on 28/04/1981. By Judgment and Decree dated 06/08/1999, the learned First Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao (trial Court) decreed the suit and directed the defendants to pay the principal sum of Rs. 21,831.64 to the plaintiffs with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 28/11/1980 till the date of actual payment. 3. The defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1999 against the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court. By judgment and decree dated 09/07/2003, the learned Additional District Judge (III), South Goa, Margao (first Appellate Court) allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 06/08/1999 of the trial Court. The Special Civil Suit No. 65/...
Mohan Vishnu Naik Vs. Mrs. Mayuri M. Naik and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-08-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Pavithran A.V., learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Ms. Susan Linhares, learned Additional Government advocate appearing for respondents no.2,3 and 4. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 3. The above petition challenges the orders dated 24/06/2011 and 27/07/2011 passed by the Goa State Commission for Women passed in Case No.3/2224/2011. By the impugned order dated 24/06/2011, the petitioner was inter alia directed to pay the monthly maintenance to the respondent no.1. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 27/07/2011, the said Commission had directed the petitioner to pay half of his monthly salary to the respondent no.1. 4. Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has essentially assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the Women's Commission had no jurisdiction to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »